Describing Soils in The Field A Manual For Geomorphologists

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/356009534
Describing Soils in the Field: A Manual for Geomorphologists
Chapter · January 2021

DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818234-5.00180-2
CITATIONS READS
3 39
2 authors:
Martha Cary Eppes Bradley Gordon Johnson

University of North Carolina at Charlotte Davidson College
99 PUBLICATIONS 1,146 CITATIONS 34 PUBLICATIONS 190 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
How stream flashiness affects benthic macroinvertebrates View project
San Juans View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Martha Cary Eppes on 04 August 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

3.24 Describing Soils in the Field: A Manual for Geomorphologists
Martha-Cary Eppesa and Bradley G. Johnsonb, a Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, United States; and b Environmental Studies, Davidson College, Davidson, NC, United States
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
3.24.1 Introduction 451

3.24.2 Site selection and project design 452
3.24.2.1 Overarching conceptual framework 452
3.24.2.2 Defining your goals 453
3.24.2.3 Number of pits or soil exposures 453
3.24.2.4 To dig or not to digdNatural vs. human-made exposures 453
3.24.2.5 Locating your soil pit in the landscape 453
3.24.2.5.1 Avoid the ‘unusual’dChoose representative sites 454
3.24.2.5.2 Hillslope shape, position and aspect 454
3.24.2.5.3 Vicinity to channels and other depositional environments 454
3.24.2.6 Tools 454
3.24.3 A hole is to dig 454
3.24.4 Describing soil characteristics part I: The soil profile 458
3.24.4.1 IntroductiondThe use of indices and the ‘soil description sheet’ 458
3.24.4.2 Soil pit site metadata 458
3.24.4.3 Parent material 460
3.24.4.3.1 Introduction 460
3.24.4.3.2 Methods 460
3.24.4.4 Horizonation 461
3.24.4.4.1 Delineating soil horizons 461
3.24.4.4.2 Naming soil horizons 462
3.24.4.4.3 Identifying buried horizons 464
3.24.5 Describing soil characteristics part II: The horizons 465
3.24.5.1 Sampling 465
3.24.5.2 Sieving and gravel content 465
3.24.5.2.2 Methods 465
3.24.5.3 Soil color of the fine fraction 466
3.24.5.3.2 Methods 466
3.24.5.4 Color mottling 466
3.24.5.4.2 Methods 466
3.24.5.5 Boundaries 467
3.24.5.5.2 Methods 467
3.24.5.6 Structure 468
3.24.5.6.2 Methods 468
3.24.5.7 Consistence 470
3.24.5.7.2 Methods 470
3.24.5.8 Clay films 471
3.24.5.8.2 Methods for clay films 472
3.24.5.8.3 Methods for silt films 472
3.24.5.9 Roots and pores 472
3.24.5.9.2 Methods 472
3.24.5.10 Pedogenic carbonate 473
3.24.5.10.2 Methods 474
450 Treatise on Geomorphology, 2nd edition, Volume 3 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818234-5.00180-2

Describing Soils in the Field: A Manual for Geomorphologists 451
3.24.5.11 Texture 475

3.24.5.11.2 Methods 476
3.24.6 Final thoughts 477
Acknowledgments 477
References 477
Relevant websites 479
Glossary
Buried soil The term applied to one or more subsurface soil horizons whose weathering characteristics are interpreted to have
formed, at least in part, in association with a different ground surface than that of the soil profile being described. Deposition
of sediment (alluvium, colluvium, eolian, etc.) buried the buried horizon(s), noting that erosion prior to that deposition often
removes A-horizons and other upper-portions of the original profile.
Cumulic Adjective describing soils that are characterized by sediment aggradation at a rate whereby soil development ‘keeps
up’. Cumulic soils are generally over-thickened and under-developed compared to non-cumulic soils of the same age and
parent material.
Parent material Any inorganic sediment or rock that weathers in situ into soil.
Ped A natural aggregate of soil that forms due to weathering.
Pedogenesis Synonym for ‘soil formation’dcomprising all of the chemical and physical weathering processes that combine
together to lead to the observable soil properties.
Pedogenic Adjective describing features that arise due to weathering.
Pedology The study of soils.
Soil geomorphology The study of soils as it applies to the field of Geomorphology.
Soil morphology The combined observable field characteristics of soils that develop and change due to chemical and physical
weathering.
3.24.1 Introduction
The discipline of ‘soil geomorphology’ is focused on describing and understanding Earth surface processes through a lens of in situ
surface- and near-surface weathering of rock and sediment. As such, soil geomorphology could be considered a key subdiscipline of
all of geomorphology, including emergent Critical Zone research. Critical Zone science (e.g., Brantley et al., 2007; Giardino and
Houser, 2015; Riebe et al., 2017) employs a multidisciplinary systems approach in describing and understanding the architecture,
processes and evolution of the portion of Earth’s surface bounded by the top of the vegetation canopy and the bottom of the extent
of weathering. Thus, the field-derived datasets and approaches that serve as foundations for the discipline of soil geomorphology, as
well as textbooks like Birkeland (1999) or Schaetzl and Thompson (2015)) provide essential insight into virtually all Critical Zone
and geomorphic research questions.
Richter et al. (2020) highlights that knowledge of soil form and processes has been under-utilized in many recent geomor-
phology studies. Yet the applications of soils to geomorphology are far-rangingdfrom interpretation of cosmogenic radionuclide
inventories (Nichols et al., 2005, Nichols et al., 2007) and OSL sensitivity (Nelson et al., 2019), to quantifying the various processes
and Quaternary geology of all geomorphic systems including: hillslopes, rivers, alluvial fans, moraines, landslides, desert pavements
and dunes (Birkeland et al., 1991a; Burke and Birkeland, 1979; Fulop et al., 2019; Harvey et al., 1999; Johnson et al., 2011, 2015,
2017; Layzell et al., 2012; McFadden et al., 1998, 1987; Sweeney et al., 2013).
This manual is intended to guide the user through soil geomorphology study design and execution procedures that produce stan-
dardized, repeatable results. These methods can thus be applied todand compared betweendall geomorphology research. The
instructions included herein primarily build upon and update the summary of methods for describing soils in the field provided
in Appendix 1 of Birkeland (1999). As such, they also reflect the detailed methods employed for formal soil descriptions used in the
development of county-level soil surveys by the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; available for down-
load at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm) and provided in the 300 pages of the Field Book for
Describing and Sampling Soils (Schoeneberger et al., 2012).
Because field observations made using the NRCS handbook are designed to be employed, in part, to define soils by the specific
soil classification system (Soil Taxonomy) employed in the United States (Soil Survey Staff, 1999), the goal of the rigid requirements
of that handbook diverges from the goal of this document. Here the aim is: (1) to provide a practical guide for experienced soil
geomorphologists who want to ensure standardize descriptions between research projects and groups, using the established criteria
452 Describing Soils in the Field: A Manual for Geomorphologists
of the NRCS and (2) to provide an approachable introductory guide for geomorphologists without soil description experience who
find themselves needing pedogenic or weathering data in their research. To serve both groups, we provide an overall introduction to
the conceptual framework of soil geomorphology research (Section 3.24.2) as well as separate ‘introductions’ covering each soil
property (Sections 3.24.3 and 3.24.4) that the experienced soil geomorphologist may not need, but the soil geomorphology novi-
tiate may welcome.
This document differs from the Schoeneberger et al. (2012) manual and the appendix in Birkeland (1999) in that we also
provide field context and sufficient practical detail so that a geomorphologist, with limited guidance, could design a study, collect
the appropriate soil data, and apply it to their geomorphic research. We include instructions for describing most commonly refer-
enced soil properties in past soil geomorphology studies, some of which may be unique to particular environments (e.g., carbonate
coatings to more arid climates). We explicitly indicate when methods described herein diverge from those of the NRCS. As with any
field technique, a field guide is never an optimal substitution for experience, and anyone new to soil geomorphology would benefit
from working with someone already trained in the techniques, and or reading up on soil geomorphology overall.
3.24.2 Site selection and project design

3.24.2.1 Overarching conceptual framework
Soil geomorphology centers on the foundational concepts of the Soil Forming Factor paradigm (Jenny, 1941). Namely all weath-
eringdcomprising any in situ chemical and physical changedat and near Earth’s surface may be considered to be the result of
a combination of physical, biological and chemical processes arising from the influence of the factors of: climate (Cl), organisms
(O), relief (R; e.g., all aspects of topography), parent material (P; the original geologic material being weathered) and time (T; thus
Soil development ¼ f(Cl,O,R,P,T)). In soil-centric literature the sum result of all of this in situ weathering brought on by the soil
forming factors is referred to as ‘soil development’, ‘soil formation’, or ‘pedogenesis’. These terms should not be confused with
the term ‘soil production’ employed in some geomorphology studies (e.g., Heimsath et al., 1997). The term ‘soil production’das
employed by those studiesdrefers to a single component of weathering, namely the subsurface ‘erosion’ of material from the top of
bedrock, effectively producing loose sediment, or ‘soil’ as defined in an Engineering sense, that is available for erosion (terminology
reviewed in Richter et al., 2020).
The weathering processes that result in soil development range widely in their nature and rates, and they include in situ physical
and chemical changes to both sediment and to bedrock. Other overarching terms employed for groups of weathering processes
include rock decay, rock breakdown, or rock damage, but many of these terms don’t appear to acknowledge that the vast majority
of bedrock at Earth’s surface is overlain by at least some amount of sediment (e.g., Richter et al., 2020). Thus, we employ ‘weath-
ering’ as the overarching term.
Any soil geomorphologic study, regardless of its goals, should carefully consider how all soil forming factors may act and vary to
influence weathering within any chosen study area. It is important to note, e.g., that each of the ClORPT factors refers to the condi-
tions at the soil site itself. For example, ‘climate’ here may refer both to the regional climate of the location of the study, but also to
the microclimate of the landscape position of the particular soil. These can diverge greatly. Because water availability will exert enor-
mous influence on virtually all weathering processes, particular attention should be paid to how all aspects of CL,O,R,P, and T may
impact, though processes like runoff, runon or evapotranspiration, water content in the soil itself.
Soil geomorphology studies should also always be designed in the context of surficial geologic mapping, whereby the sedimen-
tary deposit or rock type expressed at the ground surfacedas well as its stratigraphic contextdis identified, thus controlling for
parent material, relative age and other soil forming factors that are unique to each landform and/or deposit. Within each land-
formdlike a terrace, alluvial fan, or hillslopedthere will be additional soil variability related to the processes that formed, and
continue to act, on each. Thus, it may be relevant to examine soils in the context of landscape position within a single type of land-
form (e.g., bars versus swales on alluvial fan, backslope vs. toeslope of a hillside), or across several map units of the same landform
(e.g., terraces or alluvial fans of different ages in the same field area) depending on the study goals. The potential variations of soil
forming factors are endless, and so, therefore, are the types of potential geomorphic questions that can be addressed by examining
the soil properties that result from them.
Here, for clarity, we will generically refer to any group of landforms, landscape positions or portions of a geologic map unit that
are inferred to generally share the same soil forming factors as a ‘landscape unit’. We emphasize however, that any such ‘landscape
unit’ as defined in one study may be made up of several such landscape units in anotherde.g., an entire moraine could represent
a landscape unit in one study whereas the summit, backslope, and toeslopes of moraines could represent three different landscape
units in another. The use of the term ‘landscape unit’ should thus be confined to the context of this document and/or clearly defined
for each study.
Overall, the chemical and physical weathering that comprises all soil development results in morphological changes to the
parent material, including the formation of horizons and the alteration of colors, that are the focus of the methods described in
this manual. These morphological changes, by definition, occur when the ground surface at the site of the soil is sufficiently stable
such that weathering can proceed. As such, soil characteristics that arise due to soil development are commonly employed as a proxy
for the geomorphic stability of a landform, and thus of its age (Badía et al., 2015; Birkeland et al., 1991b; Harrison et al., 1990;
Howard et al., 1993; Huggett, 1998; Machette, 1985; Markewich and Pavich, 1991; Muhs, 1982).
By convention, the soil forming factors can be thought of as a conceptual equation where one variable can be isolated if all other
variables are held constant. For instance, the factors influencing soils forming on a suite of terraces in a river valley might only differ
in ‘time’ between terraces of different age, and so the group of soils would be referred to as a chronosequence. Similarly, a suite of
soils of similar age forming on a single hillslope is term a toposequence and so on. This state factor conceptual approach therefore
allows for examining not only the influence of factors on soil development, but alsodonce those relationships are established for
a particular field sitedan interpretation of how factors have changed through time in the landscape.
3.24.2.2 Defining your goals

As with any fieldwork, the research goals of a soil geomorphology project should drive all decisions related to the study-design. This
decision-making begins with the site selection for both the overall study and for individual soil pits. Think carefully about your
research goals, possible study sites, and the factors by which the soils found in different landscape units may be influenced. For
example, if the study is centered on dating landforms and the creation of a chronosequence, then one should be careful to restrict
the study area and landscape units to those minimally impacted by the other ClORPT factors. (Don’t, as an obvious example, dig
a pit in a forested site and an open prairie site when the goal is to establish the influence of soil age on the two soils.)
If the worker is unsure as to the impact of variance on a particular factor on soil development, then the study area should be
restricted to the smallest geographical range as possible. Think also about the level of detail required of the soil descriptions to
meet the goals of the study. If, e.g., the goal is to examine feedbacks between root density and carbon storage in A horizons, less
detailed descriptions of deeper horizons may suffice. If, however, the goal is defining episodes of landscape erosion or stability,
then paying careful attention to subsurface horizons, marking buried soils, and identifying allostratigraphic units within the soil
profiles will be key. In all cases, detailed surficial geologic/geomorphic mapping in concert with the soil descriptions will result
in the most accurate interpretations of soil profiles.
3.24.2.3 Number of pits or soil exposures

Digging soil pits is hard work. Inevitably, a balance must be struck between describing sufficient exposures to draw solid conclusions
and using field time and energy wisely. Documenting the spatial variability of soils forming in the same landscape unitde.g., within
the same map unit or slope positiondis nevertheless crucial for establishing the natural variance in soils within an area that is
perceived as having roughly the same soil forming factors (Harrison et al., 1990; Johnson et al., 2015). A minimum of three soil
descriptions per landscape unit is recommended. If that is not possible, one or two full exposure descriptions, supplemented by
auger descriptions to ensure spatial consistency can suffice.
3.24.2.4 To dig or not to digdNatural vs. human-made exposures

It is always tempting to use natural soil exposures like those along cutbanks or incised channels for a soil description. However,
most natural vertical exposures of soil have, by definition, been disturbed by erosion, and are therefore not ideal for the observation
of in situ weathering processes. Furthermore, the cut banks, landslide scars, or even road cuts that make obvious choices for soil
descriptions can be subject to lateral weathering effects from the exposure itself. Nevertheless, it is frequently not practical to dig
large m3 sized holes throughout a field area, so natural exposures must be employed (see digging how-tos below). It can be
tempting to use exposures even when fresh holes are permitted because they are perceived to be less work. However, once the expo-
sure has been sufficiently cleaned and dug back to remove washed down material, it is often as much work as digging a hole from
scratch. We recommend digging as many holes from scratch as is possible because the quality of your observations will increase, as
will the interpretation of that data.
3.24.2.5 Locating your soil pit in the landscape

Even within a single landscape unit, there can be significant spatial variability of soil forming factors that will result in variability of
the soils examined. Ideally, soils are described in what is perceived to be the most stabledor steady statedportion of the landscape
unit in which the soil is forming. This placement is so that the weathering of the soil reflects the entire exposure history of interest for
the landform or deposit.
For generally flat surfaces, like terrace treads or a moraine crests, the ideal location will be the center of the exposure, avoiding
edge. This placement minimizes the potential that any past erosion or burial has impacted the soil (e.g., A or B in Fig. 1). For hill-
slopes, this might be more linear or convex portions of the slope (e.g., C in Fig. 1) that are assumed to be in a steady state of erosion,
with minimal active deposition or burial by other sediments that might occur in more concave slope positions (D in Fig. 1) where
higher moisture availability is also more likely to impact soil development.
Concave and other low-lying landscape positions (e.g., E in Fig. 1) that naturally accumulate sediment and water should be
avoided if the goal of the study is to employ the soil as a proxy for the age of the stability landscape unit. If, however, the goal
of the study is to document periods of erosion and deposition, then concave portions of the landscape may be ideal because
they can provide interesting information regarding the periodicity of the deposition using the soil horizons themselves (see buried
soils below).
C
B
D
E
Fig. 1 Idealized landscape for consideration in a soil geomorphology study. (A) Terrace tread where opportunity for erosion of or deposition onto
the site of the soil pit is minimized. (B) Floodplain where opportunity for erosion of or deposition onto the site of the soil pit is minimized. (C)
Convex portion of a hillslope interpreted to be in ‘steady state’ whereby incoming and outgoing mobilization of sediment is most likely to be
balanced. (D) Concave portion of the hillslope where sediment accumulation is likely. (E) Low lying landscape positions where contributions from
upslope sediment and water are likely.
3.24.2.5.1 Avoid the ‘unusual’dChoose representative sites

Soil site locations should be as representative as possible of the landform or landscape position being studied and the final pit loca-
tion should represent a ‘type section’ locality for the landscape unit. Within the ‘type section’ framework, a stratified random
approach to choosing pits locations is recommended. Areas with unusual microtopography, vegetation, or signs of disturbance
should be avoided. This is somewhat in contrast to other disciplines that are more reliant on statistics where more purely random
site selection is used. The small total number of soil pits examined in most soil studies precludes the ability to obtain sufficient
samples for a statistically significant population, making it imperative that each site be representative of the landscape unit being
studied.
Throughout the field area, make note of the overall characteristics of the landscape unit (landform or deposit) for which the soil
pit is meant to be representative. Characteristics to pay attention to are overall reliefddifference in elevation from the highest to
lowest portion of the surface; the vegetation, the surface sediment or clasts visible, or other aspects that could influence soil forming
factors. When there is a large amount of topographic variability within the landscape unit of interest, best practice is to choose local
high-points on the surface (e.g., Eppes and Harrison, 1999), or to further subdivide into end-member type locations.
3.24.2.5.2 Hillslope shape, position and aspect

Hillslope shape (Fig. 2), position on a hillslope (Fig. 3) and hillslope aspect (azimuth) will all impact water routing across and
through soils, and therefore will also influence slope erosion and weathering processes (e.g., Burnett et al., 2008; Elliott, 2004; Miller
and Schaetzl, 2015; West et al., 2014). Thus, in order to compare ‘apples with apples’, these factors must be considered and
accounted for when comparing soils located on any sloping landform. For example, soils forming in the center of a concave/concave
slope will inevitably experience a higher ‘effective’ precipitation due to runon from upslope areas, compared to a soil found at
a similar position on the slope, but on a convex/convex position. Similarly, poleward facing slopes are frequently wetter than equa-
torial facing slopes due to their relatively lower evaporation.
3.24.2.5.3 Vicinity to channels and other depositional environments

Erosion, flooding and sedimentation from stream channels, or even small rills can impact weathering processes. Also, landscape
positions adjacent to hillslopes can receive sediment input from adjacent slopes (e.g., Fig. 1E). The proximity of these features
should be noted and accounted for as much as possible in pit site selection. For example, unless the channel or rill behavior is
of interest, soil pits should be located away from the channels to avoid these effects.
3.24.2.6 Tools
The final phase of project design will inevitably comprise some purchases. Depending on the substrate and site conditions, a wide
variety of tools can make field work more accurate and efficient. Table 1 lists most commonly employed tools, their purpose, and
their relative necessity to complete a full soil description as described herein.
3.24.3 A hole is to dig
STOP! Have you fully considered the location of your soil pit? If not, see Section 3.24.2, and then if still unsure, refer to texts like
Schaetzl and Thompson (2015) or (Birkeland, 1999). This will be a lot of physical effort, so make sure you have chosen wisely.
LC
LL LV
VC
VL VV
CL CV CC
L = Linear V = Convex C = Concave

Fig. 2 Idealized hillslope shapes with respect to slope curvature in the horizontal and vertical directions. The first letter refers to the vertical
direction; the 2nd to the horizontal. Based on Ruhe RV (1975) Climatic geomorphology and fully developed slopes. Catena 2: 309–320.
it
m
m
Su
er
ld
ou
Sh
pe
slo
ck
Ba
ot
Fo
e
To
Fig. 3 Parts of a hillslope (e.g., Miller and Schaetzl, 2015). Summit and toe are generally flat-lying areas at the top (summit) and bottom (toe) of
the slope. The shoulder is the convex portion of the slope. The foot is the concave portion of the slope. The backslope is the linear or transitional
part of the slope between convex and concave.
We hereafter employ the term ‘soil profile’ to refer to any 2D vertical exposure, beginning at the ground surface and ending with
the bottom of the exposurednot necessarily the bottom of the soil or weathered profile itself. We employ the term ‘pit’ to refer to
the 3D hole that exposes three or four profiles, one or more of which will serve as the primary source of information for the soil
description.
Once ready to begin digging, certain preparations should be made in order to minimize the environmental and aesthetic impacts
to the site. If possible, use a large tarp for all ‘tailings’ of the digging as it protects the surrounding surface and makes it easier to fill
the hole back in when finished.
(1) using a shovel, outline the approximate location of the entire pit boundaries; ideally a 1 m x 2 m rectangle. This surface area
of the pit will be smaller or larger, based on the anticipated pit depth, to account for the sloping walls and required maneu-
vering space. At this stage, before digging commences, the side of the pit that will be described (usually one of the narrower and
deeper sides) should be identified as the ‘pristine face’; whereby all care is taken not to even step on the adjacent ground surface
(Fig. 4). In this way, a complete profile is preserved including delicate upper most features of the soil profile. If there is no other
Table 1 Some tools to aide in soil descriptions and their purpose.
Tool and notes Required vs. optional Use
Shovel or other digging tool R Digging pits, cleaning exposures

Soils knifedsturdy, dull flat-bladed knife or trowel
(kitchen butter knife will do) R For cleaning exposures, plucking peds, obtaining samples
For obtaining the fine fraction necessary for most
analyses; plastic sieves are sufficient, but a brass or
2 mm (No. 10 mesh) sieve with lid and pan R stainless steel is preferable for durability
Munsell Color Chart R Required for soil color
Measuring depth and other sizes (e.g., peds) Seamstress
Seamstress tapedor other tape measure (1.5 m) R tapes work well as they do not gum up with dust or mud.
Hand Lens (large 10 recommended) R For examining roots, pores, clay films, etc.
Required in sites where CaCO3 accumulates in soil to test
Dropper bottle of 1 M HCl R for pedogenic carbonate
It is crucial to always and continuously recalibrate your
Soil manual of some form (e.g., this document or observations with these standards and visual cues,
Birkeland Appendix 1 or NRCS guidebook) R including a % estimator, a grain size card, etc.
Extremely helpful to ensure that all soil properties are
measured for all horizons; its use also adds significant
Soil description sheet (e.g., Table 3) O efficiency
Pick axe O Needed for digging through larger roots or clayey soil
Good for prying out large boulders in glacial deposits or
Digging bar O other coarse gravels
300 paint brush O Handy in arid soils to brush off dust
For cleaning the sieve between use, especially helpful in
Wire or stiff plastic brush (looks like a large tooth brush) O moist to wet conditions
The bottle is optional, but water is required for certain
Water bottle with squirter O analyses
Camera R Soils and their features are very photogenic
Large scale (with 5–10 CM resolution and font size
visible from 3 m distance) and small chalk board or For taking photos that include a Soil ID. The latter saves
white board O having to rename all photo files.
Permanent markers, sample Bags and tapedquart ziploc
type bags usually will do O For collecting samples
Tin foil (1 large piece folded in half, and then folded to
a convenient size for carrying) O For any 14C datable material
Bucket O For bailing out pits in wetter climates
Tarp O For pit digging tailings
Fig. 4 Photograph of a standard soil pit. Scale is in cm. (A) The area of the ‘pristine face’dthe ground adjacent to one side of the pit that is
preserved in its entirety and is employed for the majority of observations for the soil description. (B) The typical disturbance surrounding the pit that
arises during digging, disturbs upper horizons and necessitates the ‘pristine face’. Photo by Dr. Jennifer Aldred.
Table 2 Page 1 of a ‘soil description sheet’.
Location: Date: Time:
Pit Designation: Described by:
Geomorphic Surface: General Notes:
Parent Material(s):
ex: fluvial sediment, bedrock, colluvium etc
1)
2)
3) Vegetation Types Present:
4) % 'Bare' ground:
See Back for full PM descriptions % Canopy Cover
Depth (cm) Horizon Color Structure Gravel % Pores Roots Texture Clay Films Bound. Carbonate Samples Taken/Notes
ex: 0-14 Wet / Dry Moist Dry
Wet m vf gr lo 0 1 2 3 vc S SICL v1 f pf n vsl sl st vi
sg f pl 0 50 vfr so 0123c 0123c LS SIL 1 po a s
1 m pr <10 75 fr sh 0123m 0123m SL SI 2 d br c w % mm
Dry 2 c cpr 10 >75 fi h 0123f 0123f SCL SIC 3 co g I
3 vc abk 25 100 vfi vh 0 1 2 3 vf 0 1 2 3 vf L C p cobr d b 0 I II III IV V VI
sbk other: efi eh CL SC
Describing Soils in the Field: A Manual for Geomorphologists

Modified from David Jorgenson (Harbor) and Birkeland, 1999.
457
criteria like slope direction, a good rule of thumb is to choose a face of the pit that will be in complete shade at the time the pit
will be described.
(2) In sites with organic O or A horizons that can be preserved, or sites with any vegetation, using a round point shovel, carefully
excavate cube-shaped pieces of this ‘topsoil’ within the entire demarcated area and lay it out in the order that it was excavated on
a tarp. After the pit is filled, these pieces can be puzzled back together for greatest success in restoring the site.
(3) Dig the pit, keeping the sides as vertical as possible. Doing so will allow for greater visibility of lateral continuity of horizonation
and other features. Use the digging as an opportunity to notice changes to the soil properties as you dig deeper (e.g., sandier,
denser, etc.).
(4) When to stop? A Soil Science Professor will always say ‘Never’! Well, in fact, ideally the pit would be of sufficient depth to
expose relatively unweathered sediment or rock (C or R Horizon) below the weathered soil horizons. This is only occasionally
feasible. Other criteria include: encountering a marked decrease in weathering magnitudedi.e., decreasing soil development;
encountering saprolite; encountering different sedimentary facies; encountering a buried soil; encountering bedrock below
sedimentary deposits; or encountering the water table. With few exceptions, one of these will typically occur within about 1–
1.5 m of the ground surface. Care must be taken to retain safetydespecially in deeper pits. Check OSHA requirements for
appropriate width to depth ratios.
(5) Once the pit is dug, the soil profile found beneath the pristine face will need to be cleaned of debris and digging scars. ‘Plucking’
from top to bottom with a dull knifedrather than scrapingdcan best serve to clean off the pit wall and expose horizonation
and natural soil structure (peds). In dry environments, a paintbrush is useful for removing dust.
(6) It is recommended to photograph the pit, with a scale and pit ID, prior to describing and sampling the pit, which tends to back-
fill and disrupt the nice vertical face. Avoid speckled light. This can be accomplished by shading the entire pit if only portions of
it are in sunlight. A tape is a good addition, but place it to the side of the pit not down the middle. You are photographing the
soil not the tape If you are certain of your horizonation, some find it useful to use markers for horizon boundaries in pho-
tographsdcolored golf tees work nicely.
3.24.4 Describing soil characteristics part I: The soil profile

3.24.4.1 IntroductiondThe use of indices and the ‘soil description sheet’
In the following sections we note that most aspects of the soil description process require an ‘index’da semi-quantitative measure of
an observable property. The use of indices, rather than a precise measurement of some sort, is common for the collection of many
types of geologic field data (e.g., rounding, sorting and grain size (Fig. 5)). Indices are especially appropriate for soil descriptions
given the natural variation between soil profiles, and the daunting number of measurements that would be required to precisely
quantify, e.g., features of soils like ped structure. Measuring the dimensions and shape of each ped would preclude much else in
the description! Thus, it is common to use indices that essentially boil down to, e.g., ‘none, some, common, many’. Using these
systems consistently will add precision to your descriptions even where absolute accuracy is more difficult. Similarly, measurement
of the quantity of different features present within a horizon is commonly presented as a range of volume % using a percent esti-
mator (Fig. 5).
We note here that, although frowned upon in some soil circles, the discerning observer can split any of the indices presented in
the sections below into ½ measures if such detail is required, AND the observer feels confident in their ability to discern the differ-
ence consistently. For example, ped structure might be assigned a 2.5 sbk. This approach is especially useful in field areas where soil
variability is more limited overall.
We recommend the use of a soil description sheet (hereafter ‘soil sheet’; Table 2; see Supplementary Materials available at
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818234-5.00180-2) for the collection of all data for each described pit. The use of the soil sheet
adds efficiency and consistency and ensures completeness of the soil description. The observation for each metric can be simply
circled or filled in for each horizon. If a metric is not applicable in a certain horizonde.g., there are no clay films present in hori-
zondthe metric should be crossed-through so that it is clear that the observation was made and that the particular feature was not
present. Once you become familiar with your field area, you can personalize your sheet to be more specific to your area by deleting
unused columns.
3.24.4.2 Soil pit site metadata

Soil pit site location metadata that should be marked in the header of the soil sheet (Table 2) include: general location, UTM coor-
dinates, date, time, names of all describers, pit ID, landform or landscape unit, and a space for other notes. While most of these are
self-evident and represent best practices for all field work, we nevertheless provide motivation and guidance for collecting this data
here. Specifically, recording them on the soil sheet ensures that similar metadata is collected for each site unlike other field notes
where individual items may be forgotten.
Fig. 5 (A) Angularity and sphericity indices (e.g., Krumbein, 1943) commonly employed for sedimentary particles. (B) Grain sorting classes
commonly employed for sedimentary deposits and rocks. (C) Visual percentage estimator. White space may be used for higher percentages (e.g.,
95% vs. 5%).
Noting a sampling location will be familiar for most scientists embarking on soil description and is likely no different than those
described elsewhere. We recommend a description of the site, photographs (before and after), and GPS derived coordinates.
For pit ID, we recommend employing the same 3–4 letters related to something specific to the overall study, then numbers
sequentially for individual pits. For a study in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, e.g., we might recommend a designation related to
the named local geographic location, Tuolumne Meadowsdso SNTM1 might be the first pit. Keeping the pit ID simple, allows for
additions of sampling information. SNTM1-OSL1 might be the first OSL sample collected for the first pit described in the study.
Date and time are important to note because different soil features may be visible depending on the lighting. Thus, tracking the
timing of description may be important in understanding the variability of descriptions if they vary by time of day. Similarly, noting
the describers can be useful because soil descriptions can vary between individuals.
Since your research will be done in consultation with geomorphic mapping, make sure to note the specific landform or land-
scape unit on which the pit is located. Additionally, make any other relevant notes in the ‘general notes’ section including vegeta-
tion, evidence of bioturbation, and comparisons to other soil profiles. Any site characteristic that might impact soil development in
the context of ClORPT should be noted.
3.24.4.3 Parent material

3.24.4.3.1 Introduction
Essentially, the term parent material refers to geologic material that has weathered to produce the soil in question. Broadly, those
materials are either sediment or bedrock. A parent material designation of ‘sediment’ would indicate that the parent material was
originally transported and depositeddalthough we recommend that you be more specific about the type of sediment (alluvium,
fluvial gravel, etc.).
Identifying and describing parent material changes with depth in a soil profile can provide key insight into landscape evolution.
There is a common misperception that unweathered material at the bottom of a soil profile represents the parent material of the
entire overlying soil. Sedimentary facies commonly change over short vertical distances in most depositional settings, and such
contrasts in parent material can result in differences in weathering processes and products within a single soil profile. Consequently,
horizon boundaries (Section 3.24.5.5) commonly occur at sedimentary boundaries. Also, keep in mind that any soil may have
eolian input regardless of the location or landform.
In soils with bedrock parent material, the characteristics of the bedrock also impact pedogenesis. Soils formed in bedrock can
exhibit shallow (cm) and deep (100 þ m) profiles depending on the degree of weathering. In young, shallow bedrock soils the
abrupt transition from soil to bedrock will likely have significant impacts on soil forming factorsdespecially on hydrology. In older,
deeper bedrock soils, changes in parent material properties may be more gradual but will be impactful nonetheless. Saprolite
(weathered bedrock that is soft enough to dig but still contains some original grain boundaries or other visible structure like
bedding or foliation) is common below the surface horizons in these older soils and can control the depth of the pit, as digging
becomes time- or energy-prohibitive.
3.24.4.3.2 Methods
All soil descriptions should name and describe the properties of parent material in so much as that is feasible. These descriptions
should be recorded at the top of the soil description sheet in the designated area or on the additional parent material description
sheet (Table 3; see Supplementary Materials available at https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818234-5.00180-2).
Name the parent materials evident in the profile (alluvium, colluvium, granite bedrock, sandstone bedrock, etc.) If the parent
material changes within your profile, use a horizon numbering system in your horizon designations, where the uppermost parent
material is 1, the next 2 and so on. Numbers before the horizon designation indicate a change in parent material, e.g., changes in
stratigraphic units. By convention, 1 is frequently omitted.
Note that there may be two different parent materials with the same general designation within a soil profile. For example,
a coarse sand alluvium, and a silty sand alluvium. Lump or split these as appropriate for the goals of your study. If splitting, choose
boundaries between parent materials when properties change sufficiently to note observable differences (see Section 3.24.4.4
below). When lumping, you may want to sample separately so that the differences can be maintained and documented with labo-
ratory analyses. In other cases, there is no discernible change in the parent material, but a buried soil is encountered. If appropriate
for the study goals, prefix numerals can be employed for each buried soil in order to identify distinct sedimentary packages that were
necessarily deposited at different timesdas evidenced by the buried soil itself.
In the case of sedimentary bedrock parent materials, use standard sedimentological methods (e.g., Lewis and McConchie, 2012)
to describe the sediment’s grain size, sorting, rounding (Fig. 5), clast/matrix supported nature, mineralogydas percentages, and any
visible structure (i.e., bedding). All of these parent material properties can impact soil development. Noting them can also aide in
identifying changing stratigraphy and depositional environments reflected in the soil profile. Always use visual percent comparators
(Fig. 5); don’t count on your perceptions of quantity to remain consistent without them.
If the parent material is igneous or metamorphic bedrock, the description should include rock type, grain size, basic miner-
alogydas percentages, and any visible structures (e.g., foliation).
If the parent material is an exhumed saprolite, the above should nevertheless be interpreted as much as possible. For example, if
all feldspar minerals in the original rock have been weathered to kaolinite but still retain their crystal habit, both of these observa-
tions should be included. For example, ‘25% kaolinitedpresumably weathered from potassium feldspars’.
Table 3 Page 2: Employed for parent material descriptions.

Number Type Bedrock Bedrock or Sediment Sediment or Sedimentary Rocks
(Fluvial sediment, Grain Size Structures

Minerals Present
from front bedrock, saprolite Rock Type (range in (bedding, foliation, Rounding/Sphericity Sorting
(% of each)
etc.) mm) etc.)
Other
overall
notes:
3.24.4.4 Horizonation
3.24.4.4.1 Delineating soil horizons
3.24.4.4.1.1 Introduction
Soil formation is fundamentally a top-down process whereby meteoric water percolates into the soil along a boundary that is
roughly parallel to the ground surface. Thus, soils generally share similar properties in a lateral (i.e., ground parallel) direction,
but change in their characteristics with depth. These areas of lateral similarity are termed horizons. Overall, horizons names are
roughly categorized with respect to parts the soil profile that experience significant leaching (eluviation) and parts of the profile
that are most-characterized by accumulation (illuviation).
It is important to note that published US soil surveys are based upon strict rules for classifying and describing soil horizons and
properties. Here, we present a more simplified system that is generally agreed upon within the soil geomorphology community
(e.g., Birkeland, 1999; Schaetzl and Thompson, 2015), and does not require laboratory analyses. Further, this system has been
tailored to be particularly useful in addressing geomorphic questions. Though some of these horizon naming conventions diverge
from the strict rules of the NRCS, their meaning should be clear to all workers, because the nomenclature is the same (just perhaps
not the combinations thereof).
3.24.4.4.1.2 Methods
A new horizon is identified at any depth where a noticeable change in observable soil properties occurs. As mentioned above, it will
be necessary to first clean off the pristine face wall in order to clearly see horizons. Clean from top to bottom with a soil knife using
‘plucking’ rather than ‘scraping’ which can smear and distort horizon features including color and ped structure.
In order to identify horizon boundaries, begin by identifying locations along a vertical transect of the profile where there are
observable changes in soil properties like grain size, clumpiness (structure) and color. Further, it is useful to take your soil knife
blade and poke it into the profile every 0.5 cm or so from top to bottom. Doing so enables identification of changes that impact
the soils’ feeldincluding sand content or density. It can also be very useful to identify changes and new horizons by plucking out
a handful of soil from equal intervals and lay them out on paper or plastic bags. As these changes are noticed, use the soil knife to
etch the roughly ground-surface parallel lines on the pit wall that will serve as draft horizon boundaries.
Once you are satisfied with the location of all horizon boundaries within the profile, use a tape measure to identify the depths of
each horizon and record these on your soil description sheet. The top of the uppermost mineral horizon (A or E) is considered to be
zero depth. O horizons are measured in thickness up from there (e.g., þ 3–0 cm); and the remaining depths are given as the top and
bottom of the horizon (i.e., 0–6 cm; 6–15 cm, etc.). Use the instructions below to name the horizons.
3.24.4.4.2 Naming soil horizons

3.24.4.4.2.1 Master horizonsdIntroduction
The most commonly used soil horizon names are provided with uppercase letters: O,A,E,B,K,C,R. These letters are termed ‘master
horizons’. While introductory textbooks commonly depict a classic A/E/B/C soil profile, it is much more common that a subset, or
a complex combination, of these possible master horizons are present. Thus, mastery of employing these horizon names to describe
a soil profile comes with experience. Even the most newly minted soil scientist, however, can follow instructions for accurately
measuring other soil properties. Thus, horizon names can always be changed as analysis of field data proceeds, since the names
are predicated on interpretation of these data. The user should not be scared to commit to a horizon name, at least for the
short-term in the field, because they can rest assured that their other data will confirm or reject its use. The following are the basic
criteria for horizon naming (Birkeland, 1999; Brady et al., 2010; Schaetzl and Thompson, 2015).
O, A, and E horizons are considered to form within the zone of leaching in the soil profile, while B and K horizons form within
the zone of accumulation. What, precisely, is leached or accumulated depends strongly on ClORPT. For example, in extremely arid
environments, only the most mobile soluble salts like halite or sylvite will be mobile and accumulate within a soil profile. In very
warm humid climates, most soluble soil constituents can be leached away from the profile entirely, while only the most insoluble
weathering products like oxides can accumulate.
C and R horizons are, by definition, found below the level of most weathering processes, particularly translocation of surface
materials. Nevertheless, particularly in more humid climates, the chemical and physical weathering front into bedrock can be
hundreds of meters (Holbrook et al., 2019; Moon et al., 2020). There are subordinate horizon designations (see below) that can
be added to indicate these deep weathering profiles.
Oda surface horizon composed primarily of organic material including matted grass, leaf litter, and/or material in the process of
being broken down (humus). If the majority of the horizon is inorganic ‘dirt’, it is not an O horizon.
Ada horizon formed at the ground surface from a combination of ‘additions’ to the soil profile (e.g., sediment, organic material, or
dust) and ‘losses’ from this section of the soil profile (e.g., leaching or erosion). A horizons form at the surface (or under the O
horizon) but can be found deeper in the soil profile if they have been buried by sediments after their formation (e.g., burial by
flooding or hillslope creep). While they are organic-rich because of their proximity to the surface, they differ from O horizons in
that the majority of the horizon is comprised on inorganic mineral and rock.
Eda near-surface horizon marked by intense leaching such that it is commonly bleached (i.e., light in color) in appearance.
Typically found between A and B horizons, E horizons represent a portion of the soil where leaching processes are dominant and
this is apparent in the horizon properties (in contrast with an A horizon where leaching is present but new inputs are high
enough to form a dark-colored horizon).
Bda subsurface horizon whose characteristics are defined by the accumulation of translocated material from above as well as in situ
chemical weathering. B horizon characteristics vary widely depending on ClORPTdespecially climate. Thus, it is important to
understand which pedogenic processes are dominant in your field area. Mechanisms for B horizon genesis include: (1) the
physical transportation and deposition of fine particles (silt and clay) within the soil (i.e., translocation), (2) the precipitation of
dissolved solids from higher in the soil profile (e.g., iron oxides or precipitated salts like calcium carbonate or gypsum), and (3)
the in situ chemical change of one soil component to another (e.g., hydrolysis of feldspars into clay minerals).
Kda specific type of B horizon that is marked by a dominance of the accumulation and impregnation of pedogenic carbonate
within the soil horizon (Gile, 1981). This precipitated carbonate coats and engulfs nearly all particles within the horizon into
a continuous substrate (see Carbonate stages in section 3.24.5.10). Such accumulation of pedogenic carbonate was historically
termed caliche, but is now most commonly referred to as calcrete (Dixon and McLaren, 2009) in order to distinguish it from
other forms of carbonate precipitation like tufa. K horizons are not formally recognized by US soil classification system, but the
designation is commonly employed by geomorphologists working in arid and semiarid lands for horizons with Carbonate Stage
3 or higher (e.g., Machette, 1985). Others may use a lowercase k as a sub-designation (Bk; see Table 4). There is no similar master
horizon designation for other accumulated soluble salts like gypsum. In those instances, a B horizon with the appropriate sub-
designation is employed.
Cda horizon comprised of relatively unweathered sediment or rock. A key feature used to identify these horizons is that primary
sedimentary structures (e.g., bedding) or geologic features (e.g., foliation or crystalline structure) are still evident in the horizon.
Importantly because a horizon is designated as a ‘C’ horizon does not necessarily mean that it is representative of the parent
material for the entire profile, nor does it imply that absolutely no weathering has impacted that portion of the soil.
Rdrelatively unweathered, competent bedrock. R horizons may have discoloration due to weathering, but generally would not be
considered ‘soil’ by an engineerdi.e., they cannot be dug up with a shovel.
Table 4 Common subordinate feature horizon designations.
a Heavily decomposed organic matter (typically used with O horizon)

b Buried horizon
c Concretions or nodules including those made of manganese, iron, titanium, or aluminum
e Moderately decomposed organic matter (typically used with O horizon)
f Cementation via permanent ice
g Gleying and reducing conditions as a dominant process
h Illuvial organic material accumulation (i.e., below the E horizon)
i Poorly decomposed organic matter (typically used with O horizon)
j Can be used along with other designations to indicate early stage of feature
k Pedogenic carbonate accumulation
m Significantly cemented with roots only in fractures
n Accumulation of sodium (tastes salty)
ox High levels of oxidized minerals (typically red, orange, and yellow colors)
p Evidence of plowing and/or related anthropogenic homogenization in surface horizons
q Pedogenic silica accumulation
r Formed in in situ bedrock with rock structures evident (i.e., saprolite)
ss Presence of slicken-slides as a result of peds rubbing against each other during shrink/swell processes (indicates high clay %)
t Accumulation of illuvial or other pedogenic clays (should display clay films)
u Unweathereddno evidence of pedogenesis (used for C horizons)
v Used to designate vesicular silt associated with desert pavementsdNOTE: can also be used to designate iron plinthite
w Weakly developed (minimal color or structure change)
x Presence of a fragipan (hard when dry; crumbles when wet)
y Pedogenic accumulation of gypsum
z Pedogenic accumulation of soluble salts
3.24.4.4.2.2 Subordinate horizon designations

After the master soil horizon designation, lowercase letters are used to indicate the presence of a specific features within the master
horizons. Commonly encountered ‘subordinate horizon designations’ are listed in Table 4. For example, a B horizon that has ample
evidence of translocated clays (clay films) can be termed a Bt horizon, where the lowercase ‘t’ indicates a clay-rich hori-
zondsometimes termed argillic.
At times there may be more than one horizon within a profile that share an identical designations, but have slightly different
properties. For instance, a reddish B horizon with clay films may overlie a yellowish B horizon with clay films. In these cases, it
is best to subdivide the horizon into two horizons, so that the properties of each horizon can be more accurately described and
sampled. These two horizons can be distinguished by adding Arabic numerals after the master horizon (and any lower-case subor-
dinate horizon designations you may have added). In the example above example, the two horizons would be designated as Bt1 and
Bt2. Numbers are only needed if the two soil horizons share otherwise identical master and subordinate horizon designations. Hori-
zons do not need to occur sequentially in the profile to employ this approach.
As previously mentioned, Arabic numerals can also be used to designate between different parent materials. For instance, if the
top of the B horizon is red because it is formed in sandy deposit while the bottom portion of the B horizon is yellow because it is
formed in a silt-rich deposit, then we would add numbers before the master horizon: 1Bt and 2Btdin this case the 2nd Arabic
numeral is not needed because the horizons now do not have identical names.
We reiterate that the Soil Survey Staff (1999) lists strict requirements for the use of certain subordinate horizon designations with
certain master horizons. Here, we suggest a slightly more flexible system where it is useful for communicating general pedologic
information related to any soil horizon. For example, while w should technically only be used for B horizons (Bw) to indicate
weak development, its usage might helpful in describing other types of horizons that might be weakly developed (e.g., an Aw
horizon would provide clear evidence of a very young geomorphic surface or a Bkw might describe very weak accumulation of pedo-
genic carbonate).
3.24.4.4.2.3 Transition horizons

When a horizon shares properties related to two different horizon designationsde.g., a horizon that has evidence of accumulated
organics associated with A horizons, but also reddening associated with B horizonsda transition horizon designation may be
employed. The horizon might be named AB if the A-horizon properties dominate; or BA if the B-horizon properties dominate.
If a laterally continuous horizon contains discrete ‘pockets’ whose characteristics are of a completely different horizon, then a ‘/’
is used. For example, a B/K would indicate a B-horizon that held discrete areas of indurated pedogenic carbonatedperhaps
a cemented burrow.
3.24.4.4.3 Identifying buried horizons

3.24.4.4.3.1 Introduction
Buried horizons are extremely important pedogenic features for geomorphologists because they represent an alternation between
landscape stability and instability. Specifically, the formation of a soil profile, by definition, occurs during periods landscape
stability whereby there has been minimal erosion or deposition during the time of in situ weathering that formed the underlying
soil. Thus, encountering a buried soil under a surface soil provides evidence of non-steady state erosion at the site, or periodic depo-
sition due to, e.g., climate change. We provide a hypothetical here to help illustrate these concepts.
A soil with one or more horizons forms on a relatively stable geomorphic surface (T0-T2; Fig. 6), but is subsequently buried (T3
of Fig. 6). The newly deposited sediment then begins to weather and form new horizons (T4 and T5 of Fig. 6). As such, an A horizon
(Ab) is buried below the B horizon. This burial process can be repeated numerous times as is evidenced by three noticeable black
buried A horizons in the photograph of Fig. 6. The weathering characteristics of each buried soil represent the amount of weathering
that occurred during a period of relative minimal erosion or deposition during its formation. Thus, one ‘buried soil’ consists of all
the soil profile horizons that formed during this time.
It is common, however, for the underlying buried horizons to become overprinted by pedogenesis associated with the new
ground surface (T5 of Fig. 6). Eventually such overprinting can obscure the recognition of the buried soil completely, sometimes
A C
B A Ab
B Bb
C C C Cb
T0 T1 T2 T3
A
C
B A
C
C B Bb
Ab BAb BAb Ab
Bb Bb Bb2
Cb Cb Cb Ab
Ab
T4 T5 T6
Fig. 6 Conceptual cartoon for the evolution of a soil profile with 2 buried soils. T0: Unweathered parent material. T1: Incipient soil development and
plant growth. T2: Moderate soil development and continued plant growth. T3: Burial of the developing soil with sediment. T4: Incipient soil
development at the surface of the new deposit. T5: Continued soil development of the new deposit such that weathering begins to overprint the first
buried soil. T6: Burial by a 2nd episode of sediment deposition. Photograph depicts three highly-visible buried A horizons in an alluvial fan deposit
exposed by stream channel erosion across its toe. By convention, some workers will always incorporate a prefix number for each buried soil in order
to distinguish each sedimentary package. For example, the T6 profile would become: C/2Bb/3BAb/3Bb/3Cb.
termed ‘soil welding’. For example, it is common for organic material in buried A horizons to break down and be leached from the
horizon.
Soils that accumulate sediment sufficiently slowly that pedogenesis can ‘keep up’ with deposition are termed cumulic soils. Their
horizons are recognized through their over-thickened, underdeveloped characteristics compared to their ‘peer’ soils in the area.
Geomorphic locations marked by periodic deposition (including alluvial fans, or toeslopes, as in Fig. 1-E, and loess deposits)
should be considered ripe candidates for the formation of cumulic soils. Additionally, many soils accumulate eolian material
through time, resulting in a similar effect.
3.24.4.4.3.2 Methods
Buried horizons typically form via roughly similar pedogenic processes as the modern surface soil. As such, the modern soil should
be your first guide in thinking about identifying possible buried soils. The simplest approach to identifying buried horizons is to
look for horizons that are out of order or out of place. For instance, buried A can be easily recognized because dark, organic-rich
materialdor extremely silty, porous horizons in more arid environmentsddo not typically form in deeper portions of the profile
(photo in Fig. 6).
Unfortunately, A horizons are commonly partially or fully eroded during the deposition of the overlying sediment (T3 and T6 of
Fig. 6), making identification more tricky. Because of this erosion, is common to observe buried B horizons without corresponding
overlying A horizons. In these cases, buried soils can frequently be identified by abrupt and irregular or wavy overlying horizon
boundaries. Identifying these bib horizons requires the recognition of inconsistent or abrupt changes in B horizon characteristics.
For instance, if B1 is clay poor and there is an abrupt transition to a B2 with high clay content, B2 may be buried.
3.24.5 Describing soil characteristics part II: The horizons
Each of the following properties is described for every horizon. The instructions in this section originate from the Soil Survey Staff
soil description instructions (Schoeneberger et al., 2012; modified by Birkeland (1999)). We have modified and added details in
order to further best apply these practices toward geomorphic research, however, the basic metrics remain unchanged from those
of the Soil Survey, thus making them comparable to published Soil Survey and related work.
3.24.5.1 Sampling
Soil samples are frequently desirable in order to obtain soil metrics, like pH, detailed particle size, or % pedogenic carbonate, that
cannot be obtained in the field. Further, samples can also be used to check soil properties under more controlled, consistent condi-
tions (e.g., user-accuracy is more consistent when determining color under non-natural light and gravel percent can be determined
more precisely by mass). Samples should be collected by horizon, from the bottom up so as to avoid contamination from upper
horizons, taking care not to sample too close to boundaries. If horizons are > 30–50 cm in thickness, two or more sub-samples
should be collected for the upper and lower parts of the horizon. Samples should be collected from multiple lateral locations within
the horizon, and a sieve lid (or similar) used so that no material is lost as the sample is excavated. Care should be made to also avoid
sampling burrows or other unusual features present within a horizon.
Generally, about 200 g (a quart baggie) of material is sufficient to complete all of the most common laboratory tests. If space or
weight is an issue, samples may be sieved through a 2 mm sieve (noting the gravel % and discarding gravels) prior to transporting,
but you will lose your ability to calculate the weight percent of coarse material in the soil. We recommend including a slip of paper
with the sample name inside the bag, as sharpie can wear off baggies during transport.
3.24.5.2 Sieving and gravel content

Some horizon properties are observed within the pit wall, others require manipulation of the ‘fine fraction’ of the soil. This is the soil
that passes through a 2 mm sieve (Table 1) isolating sand size material and finer. Thus, sieving is required for a full soil description.
During sieving, rough gravel content is quantified. Gravel content can provide useful information regarding variability in grain size
characteristics of the parent materials.
3.24.5.2.2 Methods
Similar to sampling, pluck out the soil from the center of the horizon being sieved, avoiding boundaries and plucking a small
amount from several locations along laterally along the horizon. Make sure to capture all loose soil and peds that fall from the
horizon onto a sieve lid. About a large handful is typically sufficient. In order to obtain a representative < 2 mm sample, it is neces-
sary to thoroughly sieve all of the soil that was collected, so start with a small amount.
Transfer all soil that landed on the sieve top into the sieve. Press all material through the sieve that can pass with pressure. Dry
peds with high clay content may need to be ‘grated’ through. The only material remaining in the sieve should be the > 2 mm gravels
and organic debris. In moist to wet conditions, you will need to have a way to clean the sieve between samples in order to avoid
contamination. A stiff brush can work but a water source is preferred.
After sieving the soil, use a percent comparator (Fig. 5) to compare the proportion of > 2 mm fraction relative to the < 2 mm
fraction to estimate the percent of gravel by volume in the horizon to the nearest 10%. This is a good opportunity to describe any
features of the gravel relevant to parent material (Section 3.24.5.2). Unless needed for some other aspect of the study, the gravel
may be then discarded.
The fine fraction can be emptied onto a plastic trash bag or piece of paper laid out at the top of the pit, taking care not to mix
horizons; and then will be used for any of the following analyses that call for ‘fine fraction’.
3.24.5.3 Soil color of the fine fraction

Color is typically the most easily recognized soil property, and is commonly the first parent material characteristic to change as a soil
begins to weather. Color hue (the location on the color wheel with respect to reds, yellows, etc.) can provide indication of the
species and amount of accumulation of iron or aluminum oxides. Color value (the light and darkness of the soil) and chroma
(the dullness versus the intensity of the color) can be a good proxy for the amount of organic matter in the horizon in humid climate
(darker, duller colors noted by low value and chroma), or the amount of pedogenic salts in more arid climates (high values, low
chromas).
3.24.5.3.2 Methods
Color is quantified for the fine fraction using an Munsell Soil Color Chart (Chart, 2010). Both wet and dry colors are noted by
convention. Here wet indicates that all particles are fully coated with water, but not so much that a slurry is formed. (Soil Survey
Staff (1999) refers to this color as ‘moist’, however, we employ ‘wet’ to avoid confusion with ‘moist consistence’ which does not
require the application of water.) Dry refers to a fully dry soil down to the moisture level of ambient air humidity. In humid
climates, it is frequently difficult to dry out the fine fraction sufficiently in the field. If drying is not possible, only ‘wet’ color should
be collected in the field, and dry color can be derived from a sample air-dried in the lab.
Hold a portion of the soil up to the Munsell chart using your fingertips or a knife blade. Make sure to identify all colors in the
study under the same lighting (i.e., under all full sun, or all full-shade) with no sunglasses on. First identify the hue (page) of
the Munsell chart that most closely matches the color of the soil. Then, without touching the page (the charts are expensive),
find the chip that most closely matches the color of the soil. When squinting or blurring your vision, there should be no distinction
between the chip and the soil itself. Always record color in the order of hue, value, chroma (e.g., 7.5 YR 4/4).
3.24.5.4 Color mottling

Mottlingdalso termed redoximorphic featuresdis a soil feature characterized by alternating colors within the soil horizon that are
not related to parent material properties. Mottling is dominantly an indication of alternating saturated and unsaturated conditions
within that portion of the soil profile. This alternation between hydrologic states produces both reducing (anaerobic) and oxidizing
geochemical conditions that are reflected in the soil as grey/green and reddish/yellow (Fe) or black/iridescent (Mn) colors respec-
tively (Veneman et al., 1998; Vepraskas et al., 2018). The color patterns may align with preferential flow paths of water; they may
form ‘tiger stripe’ or ‘leopard’ patterns; or they may appear random.
3.24.5.4.2 Methods
Pluck out an in-tact portion of soil or ped from the pit wall with a knife and identify the ‘matrix’ of the soil versus the ‘mottles’. In
some instances, there will only be alternating colors of mottles within the soil, and no clear ‘background’ color.
For the mottles, if possible, note their actual color(s) using Munsell Color Chart (2010) and describe the following:
3.24.5.4.2.1 Quantity
fdfew: mottles < 2% of the surface area of the exposed surface of the horizon.
cdcommon: mottles 2–20%of the surface area of the exposed surface of the horizon.
mdmany: mottles > 20% but < 100% of the surface area of the exposed surface of the horizon.
adall: the entirety of the horizon is mottled in color.
3.24.5.4.2.2 Size
1dfine: mottles are < 5 mm in diameter.
2dmedium: mottles are 5–15 mm in diameter.
3dlarge: mottles are > 15 mm in diameter.
3.24.5.4.2.3 Contrast
fdfaint: barely visible as a color change, evident only on close examination.
dddistinct: readily seen but not markedly contrasting in color with adjacent soil.
pdprominent: contrast strongly with adjacent soil color to which they are located. These stark color changes will commonly be the
most striking color feature of the horizon.
3.24.5.5 Boundaries
At the most basic level, describing boundaries between horizons provides differentiation and clarity of the contact between horizons
themselves. Boundary morphology can provide useful information about pedogenic, depositional or erosional processes that have
impacted the soil profile through time. For instance, a gradual boundary transition is suggestive of being the result of in situ top-
down pedogenesis, whereas a sharp boundary is often evidence of an erosional unconformity or a change in parent material.
Extremely irregular boundaries can provide information regarding the preferential flow of water. For example, the morphology
of the boundary at the bottom of the E horizon can help us to understand soil hydrology and leaching pathways within the profile.
Broken and wavy boundaries often indicate a disconformity in parent material.
3.24.5.5.2 Methods
3.24.5.5.2.1 Identifying the boundary
The ‘boundary’ refers to a roughly ground-parallel line within of the soil profile that separates the bottom of the horizon being
described (one row in Table 2), and the underlying horizon. Thus, the deepest horizon of any exposed soil profile will never
have a boundary.
To find the boundary, locate the deepest portion of the horizon in question where the soil properties are unambiguously repre-
sentative of that horizon. Then locate the shallowest point in the underlying horizon whose characteristics unambiguously belong
to that horizon. Digging out a portion of each and examining them in full light out of the pit can help determine these locations. The
‘boundary’ is the zone between these points along the entire width of the soil exposure being examined (Fig. 7).
For greater boundary thicknesses, it may be worth considering that the ‘boundary’ may in fact be a stand-alone horizon. For
shallower exposures (< 1.5 m), a rule of thumb is that if over-and underlying-horizons are < 30 cm in thickness, then a > 15 cm
thick boundary may constitute its own horizon. Whether or not you follow this rule will depend on the goals of the research
and what level of accuracy is required.
r y bou bou
nda nd nda
ry nda
bou ar y bou ry
Horizon Boundary
Smooth Irregular
Wavy Broken
Fig. 7 Upper Panel: idealized conceptual drawing of a horizon boundarydi.e., the zone where one horizon’s characteristics transition into another’s.
The thickness of the boundary is called its ‘distinctness’. Lower Panels: idealized conceptual drawings of horizon boundary topographydall depicted
horizons would constitute an ‘abrupt’ distinctness.
3.24.5.5.2.2 Distinctness
Distinctness describes the thickness of the boundary zone between the two horizons.
adabrupt: the transition between horizons is < 2 cm thick.
cdclear: the transition between horizons is 2–5 cm thick.
gdgradual: the transition between horizons is 5–15 cm thick.
dddiffuse: the transition between horizons is > 15 cm thick.
3.24.5.5.2.3 Boundary topography

Boundary topography refers to the morphologydor shapedof the boundary between horizons (Fig. 7).
sdsmooth: the boundary is either parallel to the top of the geomorphic surface or is flat (planar).
wdwavy: the boundary is waveform in shape, and the wavelength is greater than the amplitude of the waves.
idirregular: the boundary comprises waveforms but the amplitude is greater than the wavelength.
bdbroken: the horizons on either side of the boundary are disrupted such that the boundary is discontinuous.
3.24.5.6 Structure
Structure describes the ‘clumpiness’ of the soil. The natural ‘clumps’ of soil are referred to as peds, and can take on various shapes
and sizes (Fig. 8). Peds form as percolating meteoric waters follow preferred pathways, translocating clays or other fine particles like
humus along those paths. In turn these deposited materials (see clay films below) serve as coatings that can hold together previously
unconsolidated material. Roots and soil microbes preferentially seek out these same wetter portions of the soil, leaving behind
microbial ‘glue’ that further enforces the geometry of the ‘faces’ of the peds.
Development of soil structure is one of the first signs of pedogenesis (e.g., Andrianaki et al., 2017; Lucas et al., 2019) and can
therefore be a good indicator of a buried soil or incipient weathering overall. Most unweathered geomaterials will not naturally have
this clumping tendency. Structure can also exert an influence on both hydrologic properties (Shukla et al., 2003) and the erodibility
(Shahabinejad et al., 2019) of soils. Structure can also be a semi-quantitative proxy for exposure age (e.g., Birkeland, 1999; Johnson
et al., 2015). With time, the soil can become entirely composed of peds, with virtually no material not bounded into these naturally
indurated pieces. The shape and size of peds depends on other soil forming factors such as parent material particle size or organic
content.
3.24.5.6.2 Methods
To observe the structure, use a soil knife to pry or pluck a large fist-size amount of soil-derived from a few areas within the hori-
zondinto your hand or the sieve top in a similar manner as sampling. Do not deform the natural clumps as you dig out the
soil. Avoid cutting the soil to remove peds, as this can result in the ‘manufacture’ of peds. You will notice both peds and loose mate-
rial in what you have extracted. Structure is described in terms of grade (proportion of the horizon composed of peds), type (shape
of the peds), and size (size categories depending on shape).
3.24.5.6.2.1 Grade
The grade of the structure refers to the proportion of peds relative to lose or non-clumped material in a horizon.
mdmassive: Soil presents as a single mass without internal structure (similar to massive bedding in sedimentology). No peds are
observed and soil removed from profile is the shape of the tool used to remove it. Deposited clay is commonly massive in
structure.
sgdsingle grain: Soil removed from the profile wall lacks any peds but instead comprises individual grains, similar to beach sand.
1dweak: Of the soil removed from the profile wall that has fallen into your hand, a minority of the soil consists of peds. The
majority of the material is not aggregated but instead comprises individual grains.
2dmoderate: The majority of the soil examined comprises peds while a minority is individual grains. Note: in young soils where
almost all soil grade is either weak or moderate, it can be useful to introduce an additional category ‘1.5’ between the two.
3dstrong: Virtually all of the material removed from the profile comprises peds. Very little if any loose material is present. Ped
structure can be seen in the profile wall.
3.24.5.6.2.2 Type
Each type (shape) of ped is described here. Use Fig. 8 to compare shapes.
Granular: Peds are small and round and the ped faces do not touch the faces of other peds. Common in horizons where roots limit
soil density.
Fig. 8 Part I: Types of soil structures (peds). Art credit: Jacquie Smith Part II: Size chart, to scale, for size class categories of different ped shapes.
[Note: Fig. 8 Part II must be printed at 100% scale in order to use it in the field.] Artwork by Dr. Jacquie Smith.
Sub-angular blocky: Peds are roughly the same size in each dimension and have somewhat rounded edges.
Angular blocky: Peds are roughly the same size in each dimension and have sharp edges.
Prismatic: Peds are vertically taller than they are wide and the top of the ped is flat.
Columnar: Peds are vertically taller than they are wide and the top of the ped is rounded.
Platy: Peds form in sheets that are thin but horizontally wide.
3.24.5.6.2.3 Size
Ped size differs for different types of structure (i.e., large for angular block is not the same as large for prismatic). Use Fig. 8 to record
the ped size for the dominant sized ped. The majority of peds should fall within the two sizes depicted for the given shape bounding
the indicated indexdfine, medium, coarse, etc. Some researchers also record the secondary size present.
Fig. 8 (continued).
3.24.5.7 Consistence
Consistence comprises three different indices that address the soil’s physical cohesion and its resistance to deformation. Soil consis-
tence can aid in determining soil texture (below), and thus is useful in determining particle size distribution of the soil overall.
Consistence is also an important engineering and agricultural property of soils because it can serve as a proxy for factors like
compaction susceptibility.
Soil wet consistence comprises both the stickiness and plasticity of a portion of the soil fine fraction that has been wetted arti-
ficially such that it is saturated but does not flow. Stickiness is a measure of adherence of wet soil to fingers and the cohesion of soil
particles to one another. Plasticity is a measure of the resistance to deformation of the wet soil mass.
Soil moist- and dry-consistence are measures of the resistance of natural peds to deformation. Either moist or dry consistence is
measured depending on ambient moisture content of the horizon. In general, if a ped ‘pops’ upon applying pressure with the index
finger and thumb, it can be considered dry. It is rare for peds to be naturally ‘dry’ in most humid temperate climates, so only moist
consistence is measured. In these cases, if desired, dry consistence can be measured on air-dried peds in the lab.
3.24.5.7.2 Methods
3.24.5.7.2.1 Stickiness
To measure stickiness, wet a handful of fine fraction such that it is wet but not flowing. Attempt to roll the soil into a ball. Then
pinch the ball firmly between your index finger and thumb (your digits). Repeat several times and note the most frequent behavior,
because the pressure you apply may vary (e.g., Foss et al., 1975; Vos et al., 2016).
sodnonsticky: no ball can be formed, soil does not readily stick to digits other than by surface tension of the moisture.
ssdslightly sticky: after release of pressure, the soil sticks (adheres) to one or both digits, and is readily and cleanly released from
one. There is no appreciable stretching of the soil prior to release.
sdsticky: after release of pressure, the soil sticks to both digits, and stretches slightly before coming off of one.
vsdvery stick: after release of pressure, the soil sticks strongly to both digits and stretches appreciably when releasing the pinch.
3.24.5.7.2.2 Plasticity
To measure plasticity, wet a handful of the soil fine fraction such that it is wet but not flowing. Attempt to roll the soil into a wormd-
about a standard pencil diameter. Do this several times and observe the most frequent behavior.
podnonplastic: no worm can be made.
psdslightly plastic: a worm can be made but the slightest bending (c-shape) will cause the worm to break.
pdplastic: a worm can be deformed to a ‘c’ shape but breaks when deformed to a u-shape;
vpdvery plastic: worm can be deformed readily to a full circle and/or bent in half without breaking.
3.24.5.7.2.3 Moist consistence

Using about 5–10 natural peds that have noticeable moisture contentdanywhere from slightly damp to wet. Apply light pressure to
each ped between the thumb and index finger. Continue to slowly increase pressure and observe by feel the most frequent pressure
required to squish the peds flat.
lodloose: no peds are present on which to make observations, noncoherent.
vfrdvery friable: the slightest of force causes the peds to break apart, they can barely be held at all.
frdfriable: slight force squishes the ped completely.
fidfirm: moderate force is needed to squish the ped.
vfidvery firm: the strongest force you can apply is necessary to squish the ped.
efidextremely firm: the ped cannot be squished with your two digits.
3.24.5.7.2.4 Dry consistence

Using about 5–10 natural peds that have no noticeable moisture content (they feel and look completely dry and ‘pop’dnot
squishdwhen pressure is applied), apply light pressure to each ped between the thumb and index finger. Continue to slowly
increase pressure until the ped ‘pops’. If it cannot be popped with thumb and index finger, try to break it with both hands. Observe
by feel the most frequent pressure required to pop your peds.
lodloose: no peds are present on which to make observations, noncoherent.
sodsoft: the slightest of force causes the peds to pop, they can barely be held at all.
shdslightly hard: slight force causes the ped to pop.
hdhard: strong force is required to cause the ped to pop.
vhdvery hard: cannot be broken with thumb and index finger, but can be broken with both hands.
ehdextremely hard: the ped cannot be popped or broken.
3.24.5.8 Clay films

As the name indicates, clay films (cutans) are thin layers of clay that are illuvially deposited in the soil profile through physical trans-
portation and deposition by percolating water. Clay films typically appear as shiny or glossy continuous coatings of clay material
within the zone of accumulation. Their glossy appearance can be attributed to the fact that planar clay molecules are deposited in
similar orientations, allowing the reflectance of light. Clay films should not be confused with pressure cutansdalignment of clay
particles due to wetting and dryingdthat are common in some clay-rich parent materials and vertisols (e.g., Hartley et al., 2014).
These cutans can be distinguished from clay films by their location within the soil profile, where the latter will be more limited to
regions where water percolates (i.e., along ped faces or root traces).
Clay films are useful to identify and record because they provide direct evidence of translocation within the soil profile and trans-
location is an excellent proxy for the degree of soil development overall. Specifically, clay films can be used to directly compare soils
on different geomorphic surfaces if the parent materials are similar enough. They are especially useful because they are clearly pedo-
genic and are not easily confused with sedimentary features. Additionally, they are easily disturbed and thus provide a proxy for
geomorphic surface stability.
Silt films (or siltans) are similarly useful age-indicators in settings with high dust content. Due to the larger particle size, however,
silt does not move through the soil profile as readily. Silt films are also not as distinctly ‘shiny’ as clay films and so their expression is
more obvious in silt-rich soils with lower clay content.
Documenting the morphology of clay (and silt) films within a profile requires reporting on both their location within the illuvial
horizons and their visual distinctness.
3.24.5.8.2 Methods for clay films

3.24.5.8.2.1 Distinctness
When looking for clay films, closely examine individual peds focusing on the ped faces and the pores (you will record the location in
the next section). As noted above, you are looking for a homogenous, glossy appearance created by the alignment of flat, clay parti-
cles. Because clay films are coatings, they can obscure the heterogeneity of soil particles being coated.
fdfaint: Vaguely present or visible only with a hand lens. Surfaces are beginning to look glossy but are not consistent. The
underlying soil particles may be evident to a degree.
dddistinct: Surfaces are consistently more glossy than adjacent surfaces. Easily visible without magnification. Underlying soil
particles are mostly obscured.
pdprominent: Surfaces are glossy enough to clearly reflect light. Clay films may also be thick enough to see in cross-section as a thin
clay draping.
3.24.5.8.2.2 Location
Where are the clay films location? Note any common occurrence locations by circling each indicator in the soil description sheet.
pfdped face: When peds are taken from the wall, the faces of individual peds show evidence of clay films.
pdpores: Clay films occur inside of the pores. They can be difficult to see on fine and very fine pores without a hand lens.
brdbridges: Clay films occur between mineral grainsdtypically as a preface to the actual grains themselves being coated. More
typical is coarse soils.
codgrain coats: Clay films occur as coatings on grains.
cobrdcolloid coats and bridges: Grains are coated and there are bridges between individual grains. This is more common than br or
co individually.
3.24.5.8.2.3 Amount
The amount describes how common clay films are using a system similar to that for roots, pores, and ped frequency.
v1dvery few: Clay films occupy less than 5% of the available area.
1. few: Clay films occupy 5–25% of the available area.
2. common: Clay films occupy 25–50% of the available area.
3. many: Clay films occupy > 50% of the available area.
3.24.5.8.3 Methods for silt films

Silt films can be described using the methodology above with the following exceptions. Silt is coarser than clay and, as a result, silt
films tend to have a matte appearance with individual silt grains possibly visibledunder hand lens. Additionally, since silt films are
less common, there is not a dedicated column for them on the soil description sheet. You can describe them in the notes column if
you need to. If you find yourself in a field area where they are consistently present, you should add the column so that it is always
present.
3.24.5.9 Roots and pores

Roots and pores act as storage sites and pathways for the flow of water and hence other soil constituents. Their abundance and size
can serve as a proxy for soil porosity and to a certain extent permeability. In addition, roots and pores commonly form in association
with surface processesdi.e., the growth of plantsdand are most abundant typically in A horizons and the upper portions of B hori-
zons. Thus, down-profile increases in pores can provide evidence of buried horizons. Down-profile changes in root size and
frequency also commonly occur in concert with changes in sediment or soil characteristics that may impact chemistry or hydrology
of a given horizon. Finally, porosity characteristicsdsize and densitydcan influence other components of the weathering system,
like the freezing point of water (e.g., Wang et al., 2017), or the material strength properties of the rock being weathered (Bubeck
et al., 2017).
In soils forming in sediment and in bedrock, roots and pores tend to exhibit power-law size distributions (e.g., Pelak and Por-
porato, 2019), so describing them requires using different scales of observations.
3.24.5.9.2 Methods
3.24.5.9.2.1 Size
Roots and pores use the same size scaling (Fig. 9). Each size class (VC, C, M, F, VF) comprises a range with overlap in its boundaries.
For spherical or elliptical shapes the size refers to the diameter; for elongated tubes or planesdroots, cracks, ped facesdthe size
refers to the diameter or width of the short dimension.
10 cm x 10 cm
VC use
100 cm x 100 cm
(not shown) VC
10mm
C
M & C use
10cm x 10 cm
5mm
M
2mm
F
F & VF use
1 cm x 1 cm 1cm x 1cm 1mm
VF
Roots or Pores Size Classes

(mm) Roots or Pores Quantity Classes
VC = Very Coarse (>10) 0.5” - Very Few = < 0.2 per area
C = Coarse (<10 and >5) “1” –Few < 1 per area
M = Medium (<5 and >2) “2.5” – Common: 1-5 per area
F = Fine (<2 and >1) “5” –Many: t5 per area
VF = Very Fine (<1)
Fig. 9 To-scale estimator for size classes of roots and pores, and the size of the areas in which each is measured. [Note: Fig. 9 must be printed at
100% scale in order to use it in the field.] Modified from Schoeneberger PJ, Wysocki DA, and Benham EC (eds.) (2012) Field Book for Describing and
Sampling Soils. Government Printing Office.
3.24.5.9.2.2 Abundance
As mentioned above, describing the relative abundance of roots and pores with an index of few, common and many requires using
different scales of observations. For very fine and fine sized roots or pores, scan the horizon, mentally dividing it into a grid with
a grid size of 1 cm2. On average, determine how many of each size class are present in each hypothetical 1cm2 square. If, on average,
there are equal to or more than 5 roots or pores of the given size class per area, then the abundance is given as ‘many’. If, on average
there are 1–5 roots or pores per 1 cm2, then the abundance is given as ‘common’, and so forth. The same procedure is employed for
medium and coarse roots and pores, but a 10 10 cm ‘grid’ is used as the deciding area. For very coarse, a 1 1 m ‘grid’ is used.
3.24.5.10 Pedogenic carbonate

In desert soils where mean annual precipitation is less than about 3000 ( 75 cm) per year, calcium carbonate is commonly dissolved
from upper portions of the soil profile and precipitated in lower B horizons as pedogenic carbonate (a.k.a. calcrete; termed caliche in
older studies). Numerous workers have shown that calcium carbonate accumulation in the B horizon can be an accurate indicator of
duration of soil development (e.g., McDonald et al., 2018; Turner et al., 2018). Also, once formed, well-developed rock-like calcic
horizons become permanent features of the landscape, even as climates change (e.g., the Ogallala formation of the Midwestern
United States), making them good candidates for study of paleoclimate information (Alonso-Zarza et al., 2020; Nyachoti et al.,
2019; Rockwell et al., 2019). Also, the indurated nature of these horizons influences the hydrology and subsequent erodibility
of geomorphic landforms that contain them (Eppes et al., 2002).
There are several observations that can be made to quantify the degree of carbonate accumulation in a horizon. The amount of
soil effervescence (fizzing) upon exposure to a weak acid is a simple to measure metric that represents a good proxy for the amount
of pedogenic carbonated accumulated in the fine fraction of the soil. Because a large proportion of carbonate in gravelly soils tends
to accumulate on the surfaces of clasts as a rind, it is important to quantify that portion of the pedogenic carbonate in the profile.
Gile and Grossman (1981) introduced four stages of calcium carbonate morphology and Machette (1985) added two additional
stages (Fig. 10). Stage definitions vary between coarse (gravel and coarser) parent material and fine (sand and finer) parent material
for stages I–III. Note: if you are working in a humid environment, it is unlikely to encounter pedogenic carbonate or other salic or
gypsic horizons, but not unheard of when parent materials contain those salts (e.g., Beach, 1998). If you are working in a more arid
(Sand and Finer)

Fine
(Gravel and Coarser)
Coarse
From Schoeneberger et al., 2012

Fig. 10 Stages of Pedogenic Carbonate Accumulation (after Gile and Grossman, 1981; Machette, 1985). Modified from Schoeneberger PJ, Wysocki
DA, and Benham EC (eds.) (2012) Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils. Government Printing Office.
environment, the coatings and stage descriptors may be employed, but for the accumulation of more soluble salts like gypsum or
halite.
3.24.5.10.2 Methods
3.24.5.10.2.1 Fizz
Squirt a few drops of HCl (1:10–12 M HCl to water) on the soil fine fraction and/or on ped surfaces in several places. Note the most
common degree of reaction:
ndno fizz.
vsidvery slightly effervescent: few bubbles seen.
sidslightly effervescent: bubbles readily seen.
stdstrongly effervescent: bubbles form a low foam.
vidviolently effervescent: thick foam forms quickly.
3.24.5.10.2.2 Clast coatings

Observe the carbonate coatings on several clasts of a range of sizes plucked from the horizon. Note the proportion (%) of each clast
surface that is coated with carbonate, and note the most frequently observed range (e.g., 50%). Note also the average thickness and
the location (bottom, top, entirety) of the coatings.
3.24.5.10.2.3 Carbonate stages

Machette (1985) identifies the following stages of calcium carbonate accumulation, separated for fine and coarse parent materials:
Stage I: CoarsedCaCO3 coatings are discontinuous as clast coatings typically on the bottoms. Matrix also may be calcareous next to
clasts.
Fine: Sand grains have calcareous coatings or filaments. Light white color; strong fizz.
Stage II: CoarsedCaCO3 coatings are continuous but thin on clasts. Carbonate is visible throughout the matrix.
Fine: Calcareous nodules or filaments along root traces are consistently present. The matrix is lightened in color by calcium
carbonate even if it is not present in all locations.
Stage III: CoarsedThe horizon is dominated by calcium carbonate and parent material has been displaced by calcite. Clasts have
thick calcareous coatings and pores are clogged by carbonate. Cementation may be discontinuous.
Fine: The horizon is dominated by calcium carbonate and parent material has been displaced by calcite. Sand grains are coated with
carbonate and pores are clogged. Cementation may be discontinuous. Entire horizon is distinctly white in color.
Stage IV: Carbonate cementation is complete and laminar deposit is present on top of the horizon because all pores are clogged.
Platy structure is also observable due to the laminar layer.
Stage V: Features a laminar layer and platy structure (as above) but it is more defined and the expression is stronger. Some pisolith
(phyllitic carbonate layers) and brecciation is present.
Stage VI: Pisoliths (spheroid concretions) and brecciated sections are dominant. Recemented common after brecciation.
3.24.5.11 Texture
Soil texturedthe relative percent of sand, silt and clay-sized material in the soil, divided into 12 size categories (Fig. 11)dexerts
a key influence on the hydrologic properties of soils as well as their ecological function (e.g., Vannoppen et al., 2017), and thus
is a useful soil metric for understanding both weathering and erosional processes. Texture is the sum result of both primary parent
material propertiesdcoarser sediments and rocks exhibit coarser soil texturesdand also secondary pedogenic processes. For the
latter, additions of silt- and clay sized material from ongoing dust deposition will result in temporal changes to soil texture in
the soil surface horizons. Also, clay-size material formed in situ through chemical weathering processes in B horizons can reduce
the grain size and change the texture of the soil compared to its parent material. Thus, across similar parent materials, soil texture
can serve as a strong proxy for overall degree of soil development. All of these fine-sized materials, regardless of their origin, can be
transported and deposited into lower horizons by infiltrating meteoric water.
While the added accuracy of particle size analysis in the lab is useful, determining texture in the field is a proven precise method
(repeatable within 5–15%) that provides instant, free results for this key soil property (Vos et al., 2016). It should be noted,
however, that pedogenic processes such as the accumulation of CaCO3 or Fe and Al hydroxides cement fine particles and create
a more coarse texture than would be apparent when they are removed during lab analyses.
Textural analysis is performed on a wetted portion of the fine fraction (i.e., sieved material) that is saturated with water, but not
flowing. Since determining the texture is reliant on understanding plasticity and stickiness, those properties should either be
completed first or at the same time as texture.
100%
%
20
80%
%
40
60%
clay
C
SILT
CLAY
%
silty clay
60
SiC
40% sandy clay
SC clay loam silty clay loam
CL SiCL
sandy clay loam
%
80
SCL
20% loam
L
loa sandy loam
SL silt loam
my
0%
SiL
sand LS sand silt
10
S Si
SAND
10
80
60
40
20
0%
Fig. 11 Soil texture categories plotted by their range of relative percent of sand, silt and clay.
While there are many guides to determining texture, we have provided a new flow chart (Fig. 12) derived from our experience in
teaching soil texture determination to Earth scientists. Performing the technique on samples with known particle size measured in
a lab can help you to calibrate your fingers and is highly recommended if no ‘pre-calibrated’ instructor is available.
3.24.5.11.2 Methods
Determining texture using the flow chart (Fig. 12)
1. wet a handful of the sieved fine-fraction to the point where the wetted sample is coherent but not sloppy or flowing.
2. complete wet consistence if it hasn’t already been completed
3. pinch and rub some of the soil between your thumb and index finger, paying attention to the smoothnessdlike velvety cake
flourdor grittinessdlike beach or river sanddof the sample
4. proceed through the flow chart
Fig. 12 A flow-chart to determine soil texture.

3.24.6 Final thoughts
Here, we have highlighted the soil properties that are the most useful to the typical geomorphologist. As such, they are also the most
commonly presented field data within the soil geomorphology literature. The soil survey guidebook (Schoeneberger et al., 2012)
that helps to guide to soil classification in the United States (e.g., Soil Survey Staff, 1999) is significantly more detailed and contains
methods for describing many other soil properties. It is also free to access and an excellent reference.
Now what? It might seem overwhelming to consider how all of these details may be brought together to interpret a landscape.
The answer is to simplify and combine these properties. For example, each soil property or combinations thereof represent the entire
sum of the weathering history of the soil profile. Consequently, weathering indices (Harden, 1982; Price and Velbel, 2003) can be
derived from different horizon properties for the entire soil profile and employed to quantitatively compare and contrast soils in
a particular study. While it is easy to get lost in the details of each pit (you have, after all collected a lot of data), think broadly about
the patterns that you have observed (depth of soils, horizonation, etc.). Do not focus on soils that ended up being non-
representative. Let your expertise in geomorphology help you to understand why soils may differ from each other, and vice-
versa. Subtle variability in slope or concavity may lead to large differences in soil properties. Similarly, buried soils, in combination
with numeric dating, can provide insights into surficial geologic maps or to landscape response to external climate or tectonic
forcing (Eppes et al., 2008; Eppes and McFadden, 2008; Johnson et al., 2010, 2011). Overall, describing soils in the field using
this manual can provide a mechanism for quantifying the weathering characteristics of the landscape and its deposits. As such,
soil properties may lead to unique and invaluable insight into the landscapes in which they form.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge their students and the uncountable hours we collectively spent in the bottom of grave-sized holes looking at dirt.
Without learning how best to teach those students, we could not have arrived at this manuscript. Thanks to Jacquie Smith who drew pictures of peds
on a tight deadline. Bruce Harrison and J. Dixon provided very useful reviews of the manuscript. We also acknowledge the foundational instruction
provided to Eppes by David Harbor, Bruce Harrison and Les McFadden for how to describe soils in the field. We most especially thank Pete Birkeland
for pushing this science we love to the forefront of the minds of geomorphologists everywhere, and for giving us his blessing to put together this new
version of the ‘soil bible’.
References
Alonso-Zarza, A.M., Rodríguez-Berriguete, Á., Martín-Pérez, A., Martín-García, R., Menendez, I., Mangas, J., 2020. Unravelling calcrete environmental controls in volcanic islands,
Gran Canaria Island, Spain. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 554, 109797.
Andrianaki, M., Bernasconi, S.M., Nikolaidis, N.P., 2017. Quantifying the incipient development of soil structure and functions within a glacial forefield chronosequence. Advances in
Agronomy 142, 215–239. Elsevier.
Badía, D., Martí, C., Casanova, J., Gillot, T., Cuchí, J.A., Palacio, J., Andrés, R., 2015. A quaternary soil chronosequence study on the terraces of the Alcanadre River (semiarid Ebro
Basin, NE Spain). Geoderma 241, 158–167.
Beach, T., 1998. Soil constraints on Northwest Yucatan, Mexico: Pedoarchaeology and Maya subsistence at Chunchucmil. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 13 (8),
759–791.
Birkeland, P.W., 1999. Soils and Geomorphology. Oxford University Press, New York, 448 p.
Birkeland, P.W., Berry, M.E., Swanson, D.K., 1991a. Use of soil catena field data for estimating relative ages of moraines. Geology 19 (3), 281–283.
Birkeland, P.W., Machette, M.N., Haller, K.M., 1991b. Soils as a Tool for Applied Quaternary Geology. Utah Geological and Mineral Survey.
Brady, N.C., Weil, R.R., Brady, N.C., 2010. Elements of the Nature and Properties of Soils. Pearson.
Brantley, S.L., Goldhaber, M.B., Ragnarsdottir, K.V., 2007. Crossing disciplines and scales to understand the critical zone. Elements 3 (5), 307–314.
Bubeck, A., Walker, R., Healy, D., Dobbs, M., Holwell, D., 2017. Pore geometry as a control on rock strength. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 457, 38–48.
Burke, R., Birkeland, P.W., 1979. Reevaluation of multiparameter relative dating techniques and their application to the glacial sequence along the eastern escarpment of the Sierra
Nevada, California. Quaternary Research 11 (1), 21–51.
Burnett, B.N., Meyer, G.A., McFadden, L.D., 2008. Aspect-related microclimatic influences on slope forms and processes, northeastern Arizona. Journal of Geophysical Research.
Earth Surface 113 (F3).
Chart, M.S.C., 2010. Munsell Soil Color Charts: With Genuine Munsell Color Chips. Munsell Color (Firm), Grand Rapids, MI.
Dixon, J.C., McLaren, S.J., 2009. Duricrusts, Geomorphology of Desert Environments. Springer, pp. 123–151.
Elliott, C., 2004. Surface moisture availability and rock weathering in cold climates. New Zealand Geographer 60 (1), 44–51.
Eppes, M., Harrison, J., 1999. Spatial variability of soils developing on basalt flows in the Potrillo volcanic field, southern New Mexico: Prelude to a chronosequence study. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 24 (11), 1009–1024.
Eppes, M.C., McFadden, L., 2008. The influence of bedrock weathering on the response of drainage basins and associated alluvial fans to Holocene climates, San Bernardino
Mountains, California, USA. The Holocene 18 (6), 895–905.
Eppes, M., McFadden, L., Matti, J., Powell, R., 2002. Influence of soil development on the geomorphic evolution of landscapes: An example from the Transverse Ranges of
California. Geology 30 (3), 195–198.
Eppes, M.C., Bierma, R., Vinson, D., Pazzaglia, F., 2008. A soil chronosequence study of the Reno valley, Italy: Insights into the relative role of climate versus anthropogenic forcing
on hillslope processes during the mid-Holocene. Geoderma 147 (3), 97–107.
Foss, J., Wright, W., Coles, R., 1975. Testing the accuracy of field textures. Soil Science Society of America Journal 39 (4), 800–802.
Fulop, E.C., Johnson, B.G., Keen-Zebert, A., 2019. A geochronology-supported soil chronosequence for establishing the timing of shoreline parabolic dune stabilization. Catena 178,
232–243.
Giardino, J.R., Houser, C., 2015. Principles and Dynamics of the Critical Zone. Elsevier.
Gile, L.H., 1981. Soils and geomorphology in the basin and range area of southern New Mexico: Guidebook to the desert project, New Mexico. Bureau of Mines and Mineral
Resources Memoir 39, 222.
Gile, L.H., Grossman, R.B., 1981. The Desert Project Soil Monograph: Soils and Landscapes of a Desert Region Astride the Rio Grande Valley near Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Washington, DC, US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Harden, J.W., 1982. A quantitative index of soil development from field descriptions: Examples from a chronosequence in central California. Geoderma 28 (1), 1–28.
Harrison, J., McFadden, L., Weldon III, R., 1990. Spatial soil variability in the Cajon Pass chronosequence: Implications for the use of soils as a geochronological tool. Geomorphology
3 (3–4), 399–416.
Hartley, P.E., Presley, D.R., Ransom, M.D., Hettiarachchi, G.M., West, L.T., 2014. Vertisols and vertic properties of soils of the Cherokee Prairies of Kansas. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 78 (2), 556–566.
Harvey, A.M., Wigand, P.E., Wells, S.G., 1999. Response of alluvial fan systems to the late Pleistocene to Holocene climatic transition: Contrasts between the margins of pluvial
Lakes Lahontan and Mojave, Nevada and California, USA. Catena 36 (4), 255–281.
Heimsath, A.M., Dietrich, W.E., Nishiizumi, K., Finkel, R.C., 1997. The soil production function and landscape equilibrium. Nature 388 (6640), 358--361.
Holbrook, W.S., Marcon, V., Bacon, A.R., Brantley, S.L., Carr, B.J., Flinchum, B.A., Richter, D.D., Riebe, C.S., 2019. Links between physical and chemical weathering inferred from
a 65-m-deep borehole through Earth’s critical zone. Scientific Reports 9 (1), 4495.
Howard, J.L., Amos, D.F., Daniels, W.L., 1993. Alluvial soil chronosequence in the inner Coastal Plain, central Virginia. Quaternary Research 39 (2), 201–213.
Huggett, R.J., 1998. Soil chronosequences, soil development, and soil evolution: A critical review. Catena 32 (3–4), 155–172.
Jenny, H., 1941. Factors of Soil Formation. In: A System of Quantitative Pedology. McGraw Hill, New York, p. 281.
Johnson, B.G., Eppes, M.C., Diemer, J.A., 2010. Surficial geologic map of the upper Conejos River drainage, southeastern San Juan Mountains, Southern Colorado, USA. Journal of
Maps 6 (1), 30–39.
Johnson, B.G., Eppes, M.C., Diemer, J.A., Jiménez-Moreno, G., Layzell, A.L., 2011. Post-glacial landscape response to climate variability in the southeastern San Juan Mountains of
Colorado, USA. Quaternary Research 76 (3), 352–362.
Johnson, B.G., Layzell, A.L., Eppes, M.C., 2015. Chronosequence development and soil variability from a variety of sub-alpine, post-glacial landforms and deposits in the
southeastern San Juan Mountains of Colorado. Catena 127, 222–239.
Johnson, B.G., Smith, J.A., Diemer, J.A., 2017. A chronology of post-glacial landslides suggests that slight increases in precipitation could trigger a disproportionate geomorphic
response. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 42 (14), 2223–2239.
Krumbein, W., 1943. Fundamental attributes of sedimentary particles. University of Iowa Studies in Engineering: Bulletin 27, 318–331.
Layzell, A., Eppes, M.C., Lewis, R., 2012. A soil chronosequence study on terraces of the Catawba River near Charlotte, NC: Insights into the long-term history evolution of a major
eastern seaboard Atlantic Piedmont drainage basin. Southeastern Geology 49, 13–24.
Lewis, D.W., McConchie, D., 2012. Analytical Sedimentology. Springer Science & Business Media.
Lucas, M., Schlüter, S., Vogel, H.-J., Vetterlein, D., 2019. Soil structure formation along an agricultural chronosequence. Geoderma 350, 61–72.
Machette, M.N., 1985. Calcic soils of the southwestern United States. Geological Society of America Special Papers 203, 1–22.
Markewich, H., Pavich, M., 1991. Soil chronosequence studies in temperate to subtropical, low-latitude, low-relief terrain with data from the eastern United States. Geoderma 51
(1–4), 213–239.
McDonald, E., Sancho Marcén, C., Pena-Monne, J.L., Rhodes, E., 2018. Pedogenesis and properties of soils formed on a 800 ka sequence of Quaternary River Terraces in the
Spanish Pyrenees. In: EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, p. 18469.
McFadden, L.D., Wells, S.G., Jercinovich, M.J., 1987. Influences of eolian and pedogenic processes on the origin and evolution of desert pavements. Geology 15 (6), 504–508.
McFadden, L.D., McDonald, E.V., Wells, S.G., Anderson, K., Quade, J., Forman, S.L., 1998. The vesicular layer and carbonate collars of desert soils and pavements: Formation, age
and relation to climate change. Geomorphology 24 (2–3), 101–145.
Miller, B.A., Schaetzl, R.J., 2015. Digital classification of hillslope position. Soil Science Society of America Journal 79 (1), 132–145.
Moon, S., Perron, J.T., Martel, S.J., Goodfellow, B.W., Mas Ivars, D., Hall, A., Heyman, J., Munier, R., Näslund, J.O., Simeonov, A., 2020. Present-day stress field influences
bedrock fracture openness deep into the subsurface. Geophysical Research Letters 47 (23), e2020GL090581.
Muhs, D.R., 1982. A soil chronosequence on quaternary marine terraces, San Clemente Island, California. Geoderma 28 (3–4), 257–283.
Nelson, M., Rittenour, T., Cornachione, H., 2019. Sampling methods for luminescence dating of subsurface deposits from cores. Methods and Protocols 2 (4), 88.
Nichols, K.K., Bierman, P.R., Eppes, M., Caffee, M., Finkel, R., Larsen, J., 2005. Late quaternary history of the Chemehuevi Mountain piedmont, Mojave Desert, deciphered using
10Be and 26Al. American Journal of Science 305 (5), 345–368.
Nichols, K.K., Bierman, P.R., Eppes, M.C., Caffee, M., Finkel, R., Larsen, J., 2007. Timing of surficial process changes down a Mojave Desert piedmont. Quaternary Research 68
(1), 151–161.
Nyachoti, S., Jin, L., Tweedie, C.E., Ma, L., 2019. Insight into factors controlling formation rates of pedogenic carbonates: A combined geochemical and isotopic approach in dryland
soils of the US Southwest. Chemical Geology 527, 118503.
Pelak, N., Porporato, A., 2019. Dynamic evolution of the soil pore size distribution and its connection to soil management and biogeochemical processes. Advances in Water
Resources 131, 103384.
Price, J.R., Velbel, M.A., 2003. Chemical weathering indices applied to weathering profiles developed on heterogeneous felsic metamorphic parent rocks. Chemical Geology 202 (3–
4), 397–416.
Richter, D.D., Eppes, M.C., Austin, J.C., Bacon, A.R., Billings, S.A., Brecheisen, Z., Ferguson, T.A., Markewitz, D., Pachon, J., Schroeder, P.A., Wade, A.M., 2020. Soil production
and the soil geomorphology legacy of Grove Karl Gilbert. Soil Science Society of America Journal 4 (1), 1–20.
Riebe, C.S., Hahm, W.J., Brantley, S.L., 2017. Controls on deep critical zone architecture: A historical review and four testable hypotheses. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
42 (1), 128–156.
Rockwell, T., Masana, E., Sharp, W., Stepancíková, P., Ferrater, M., Mertz-Kraus, R., 2019. Late quaternary slip rates for the southern Elsinore fault in the Coyote Mountains,
southern California from analysis of alluvial fan landforms and clast provenance, soils, and U-series ages of pedogenic carbonate. Geomorphology 326, 68–89.
Schaetzl, R.J., Thompson, M.L., 2015. Soils. Cambridge University Press.
Schoeneberger, P.J., Wysocki, D.A., Benham, E.C., 2012. Field Book for Describing and Sampling Soils. Version 3.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey
Center, Lincoln, NE, p. 300.
Shahabinejad, N., Mahmoodabadi, M., Jalalian, A., Chavoshi, E., 2019. The fractionation of soil aggregates associated with primary particles influencing wind erosion rates in arid to
semiarid environments. Geoderma 356, 113936.
Shukla, M., Lal, R., Owens, L., Unkefer, P., 2003. Land use and management impacts on structure and infiltration characteristics of soils in the North Appalachian region of Ohio.
Soil Science 168 (3), 167–177.
Staff, S, 1999. Soil taxonomy. In: Agriculture Handbook, vol. 436. US Department of Agriculture, p. 869.
Sweeney, M.R., McDonald, E.V., Markley, C.E., 2013. Alluvial sediment or playas: What is the dominant source of sand and silt in desert soil vesicular A horizons, southwest USA.
Journal of Geophysical Research. Earth Surface 118 (1), 257–275.
Turner, B.L., Hayes, P.E., Laliberté, E., 2018. A climosequence of chronosequences in southwestern Australia. European Journal of Soil Science 69 (1), 69–85.
Vannoppen, W., De Baets, S., Keeble, J., Dong, Y., Poesen, J., 2017. How do root and soil characteristics affect the erosion-reducing potential of plant species? Ecological
Engineering 109, 186–195.
Veneman, P., Spokas, L., Lindbo, D., 1998. Soil moisture and redoximorphic features: A historical perspective. Quantifying Soil Hydromorphology 54, 1–23.
Vepraskas, M.J., Lindbo, D.L., Stolt, M.H., 2018. Redoximorphic Features, Interpretation of Micromorphological Features of Soils and Regoliths. Elsevier, pp. 425–445.
Vos, C., Don, A., Prietz, R., Heidkamp, A., Freibauer, A., 2016. Field-based soil-texture estimates could replace laboratory analysis. Geoderma 267, 215–219.
Wang, C., Lai, Y., Zhang, M., 2017. Estimating soil freezing characteristic curve based on pore-size distribution. Applied Thermal Engineering 124, 1049–1060.
West, N., Kirby, E., Bierman, P., Clarke, B.A., 2014. Aspect-dependent variations in regolith creep revealed by meteoric 10Be. Geology 42 (6), 507--510.
Relevant websites
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/soilsurvey/soils/survey/state/dCounty-level soil surveys by state.

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052523.pdfdNRCS Soil Handbook.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/class/taxonomy/?cid¼nrcs142p2_053580dOnline versions of Soil Taxonomy.
https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha2226.pdfdOSHA Trench Safety.
View publication stats

Describing Soils in The Field A Manual For Geomorphologists

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Describing Soils in The Field A Manual For Geomorphologists

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Describing Soils in the Field: A Manual for Geomorphologists

Chapter · January 2021

Martha Cary Eppes Bradley Gordon Johnson

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

How stream flashiness affects benthic macroinvertebrates View project

San Juans View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

3.24.1 Introduction 451

450 Treatise on Geomorphology, 2nd edition, Volume 3 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818234-5.00180-2

3.24.5.11 Texture 475

3.24.2 Site selection and project design

3.24.2.2 Deﬁning your goals

3.24.2.3 Number of pits or soil exposures

3.24.2.4 To dig or not to digdNatural vs. human-made exposures

3.24.2.5 Locating your soil pit in the landscape

3.24.2.5.1 Avoid the ‘unusual’dChoose representative sites

3.24.2.5.2 Hillslope shape, position and aspect

3.24.2.5.3 Vicinity to channels and other depositional environments

3.24.3 A hole is to dig

L = Linear V = Convex C = Concave

Table 1 Some tools to aide in soil descriptions and their purpose.

Tool and notes Required vs. optional Use

Shovel or other digging tool R Digging pits, cleaning exposures

Describing Soils in the Field: A Manual for Geomorphologists

Modiﬁed from David Jorgenson (Harbor) and Birkeland, 1999.

3.24.4 Describing soil characteristics part I: The soil profile

3.24.4.2 Soil pit site metadata

3.24.4.3 Parent material

Table 3 Page 2: Employed for parent material descriptions.

(Fluvial sediment, Grain Size Structures

3.24.4.4.2 Naming soil horizons

Table 4 Common subordinate feature horizon designations.

a Heavily decomposed organic matter (typically used with O horizon)

3.24.4.4.2.2 Subordinate horizon designations

3.24.4.4.2.3 Transition horizons

3.24.4.4.3 Identifying buried horizons

3.24.5 Describing soil characteristics part II: The horizons

3.24.5.2 Sieving and gravel content

3.24.5.3 Soil color of the ﬁne fraction

3.24.5.4 Color mottling

3.24.5.5.2.3 Boundary topography

3.24.5.7.2.3 Moist consistence

3.24.5.7.2.4 Dry consistence

3.24.5.8 Clay ﬁlms

3.24.5.8.2 Methods for clay films

3.24.5.8.3 Methods for silt films

3.24.5.9 Roots and pores

Roots or Pores Size Classes

3.24.5.10 Pedogenic carbonate

(Sand and Finer)

From Schoeneberger et al., 2012

3.24.5.10.2.2 Clast coatings

3.24.5.10.2.3 Carbonate stages

Fig. 12 A ﬂow-chart to determine soil texture.

3.24.6 Final thoughts

https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/soilsurvey/soils/survey/state/dCounty-level soil surveys by state.

View publication stats

You might also like